"I don't understand how teaching RDA before AACR2 in any way addresses the
difficulty of teaching two different cataloging codes or standards in one
class. It also does not address the issues of teaching a standard before it
has been released and accepted into widespread use."
Dr. Stauffer, thank you for pointing this out; I think I should have been a
bit more clear in my earlier statements. The point I was trying to make was
that RDA can be taught as a sort of criticism of AACR2-- that is, it
provides format for how AACR2 comes up short in describing unusual items or
sets of items. It also provides context for using any kind of metadata in a
library system, period-- that is, why is data structured like this in an
OPAC? Why is MARC used, instead of something else (the issue of "legacies,"
brought up by Karen, can be addressed here, too)? Why was RDA created to
begin with? My point was that RDA can be introduced into a course as a good
way to provide a historical perspective (i.e., how do new standards answer
questions posed by old standards?).
I see LIS students-- or recent graduates like myself-- presented with these
standards in library school and told to memorize them with no other
explanation than "that's the way we've always done it." Memorization is a
fine thing for cataloging, but that alone isn't good for encouraging
experimentation and collaboration-- if that's the way we've always done it,
why bother to reorganize, innovate, or at least modify the standard to best
suit an unusual item? It gives the illusion that cataloging is a static